1. I would "return to the battlefield" too after being treated like they are, even if i had done nothing before. What makes you think Gitmo is not the cause?

2. If the convention is outdated, update it. It's not like the US is pushing the Hague and others to convene treaty proceedings to get this done. Until the US actually takes any steps to try to fix this "problem", i take it as just a BS excuse.

3. You have a very strange view of what happens, one I can only imagine is contributed to mainly by local media. They do in fact, call Canada, Turkey, Sweden, and others. These are rarely, if ever, unilateral actions. Due to some folks i'm friends with, i've actually occasionally traveled with some of these kinds of delegations, and I assure you, none of this is "better call big brother US to beat these guys up".

4. They would never declassify a document that shows them having been wrong until at least 20-25 years after the fact.

Agreed, especially on #2. Let's have a new international war treaty that assigns basic human rights to all people

Be sure you figure out how to enforce it first, especially for those who kidnap kids and turn them into suicide bombers (apparently they give them a 'magic amulet' which they tell the children will protect them from the blast).

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/20121014102...

I don't think that we can change that. But what we can do is hold ourselves to a higher standard of decency and treat people the way we'd want to be treated.

The problem is that our ROE is seen as an act of weakness, not compassion.

Our ROE says not to shoot unarmed kids. So, the enemy puts suicide vests on kids and sends them at us.

Our ROE says not to shoot people who aren't carrying a weapon. So, they shoot at us, drop their weapon, and walk to the next building to do it again.

Our ROE says not to blow up a house if there are civilians inside. So they take a family hostage and shoot at us from upstairs.

My attitude is that we use these rules as a courtesy. We didn't bomb hospitals in WW2 because those hospitals weren't being used as shelter for soldiers. We didn't bomb orphanages because they didn't have IED factories in their basements. Today's enemy does that, and then people get butthurt when we blow up the orphanage. Well, stop putting bomb factories under there!

Laws of war only apply when both sides agree to abide by them.

On average I think (hope?) we do. But be careful about bringing a knife to a gun fight.

The issue with Gitmo is that we're no treating others as we'd want to be treated. 10+ years with no proof/trial, simply because we've made up a new word "enemy combatant" to circumvent the Geneva Conventions... not exactly cool.

A new word for "enemy combatant", you mean, right? i.e. "Terrorists"

>>No, not really. Considering when something bad happens anywhere in the world, nobody calls Canada, nobody calls Turkey, nobody calls Sweden. They call us to fix it. They call us to send billions in aid. They call us to take care of their crazy saber rattling neighbors. You think we deserve the disdain, but can you imagine the world without the billions in aid, without all the military aid we give other countries?

Citation needed, please. There's a lot of countries and a lot of people outside the US, and the idea that they are all calling on the US to solve their political and international relations problems sounds a bit silly to me. Did you know France has had military operations Mali since 2012 without the advice, consent, or involvement of the US, for instance? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mali_conflict_%282012%...)

Here you go: http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/data/fast-facts.html

"The United States remained the world's largest bilateral donor, obligating approximately $49.6 billion—$31.7 billion in economic assistance and $17.9 billion in military assistance. By comparison, the United States obligated $37.4 billion and $14.5 billion, respectively, in FY2010."

A 25% recidivism rate is pretty good considering that many might have gone to the "battlefield" as payback for their improper imprisonment. Also, it is disingenuous to conflate terrorism with insurgency as both have different motivations and "scope of battlefield."

So-called insurgents were only a threat to local presence of Americans and not interested in sticking overseas or be a part of a broader movement against America. Just because they are fighting for their country from their perspective doesn't make it right to say they are the same as terrorists.

You also have to take into account for the loss of goodwill and reputation across the world for hosting Gitmo; particularly when it has possibly radicalized more people simply by having something to point to when a terrorist recruiter propagandizes about the 'evilness of the US' and the merits of attacking us.

Just to compare, a quick google search shows that the U.S. recidivism was around 70%. It might have improved or not since the study period, but it does perspective on the issue.

Source: http://bjs.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm

A 25% recidivism rate is miniscule considering we have been told for forever that these prisoners, all of them, were the "worst of the worst".

But your general point is a good one: Is someone who joins a not-very-nice local militia really a terrorist just because US troops or lackeys happen to be nearby? The US gov't is playing too many words games IMO.